Kiss of the Vampire = Energy Draining defense ?

[kreynolds]

Errata, guys, errata.

I actually read the errata, but it didn't make much sense to me.

Energy drain or the energy drain (Su) ability are NOT "spells and effects specifically affecting undead." They are spells of general applicability. Now, the more interesting question is whether, since inflict spells are "negative energy" effects, and their effect on you is changed by KotV, whether KotV changes your response to "negative energy" effects, including energy drain, in general. I'd say no. The cure/inflict thing and the turning vulnerability are side effects of the spell, and in the case of energy drain, I see no reason for the creation of a non-specified side effect with a substantial game benefit.

I'd say yes, specifically because of the side effects of other spells. The errata didn't change inflict spells healing you and cure spells hurting you. Both inflict spells and the energy drain/enervation spells are negative energy effects. The side effect of the inflict spell, a negative energy effect, is a healing effect while you have Kiss of the Vampire or Shroud of Undeath up. If the intent is that the side effect of an energy drain spell, a negative energy effect, is still damaging, then an inflict spell must still be damaging.

From my point of view, the errata either draws a line or it doesn't. If it draws a line, then the positive side effects of all negative energy effects have to be ignored. The way I see it, the errata is nothing but panicked backpedaling. Someone (probably SKR, but don't know for a fact) opened a can of worms when they allowed arcane healing. At the cost of an additional 2nd-level spell, an arcane caster can heal others quite effectively.

I don't doubt that the intent behind the errata was to remove the possibility of healing by arcane casters using negative energy effect spells, but it didn't do the job.

An inflict spell doesn't specifically affect undead, and according to the errata, if it doesn't specifically affect undead, neither KotV or SoU do anything to those spells. But, the part of the spell that was _not_ changed with errata, is the part specifically stating the inflict spells, even though they don't specifically affect undead, still create a healing effect. If the errata stated that cure and inflict spells were an exception, then I would be fine with it.

In short, the errata as written attempts to remove all side effects of all spells that don't specifically affect undead, while at the same time, it _doesn't_ make an exception of inflict and cure spells, both of which don't specifically target undead, and since it doesn't change that, it's in conflict with itself.

Just my opinion though.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I actually read the errata, but it didn't make much sense to me.

I'd say the intent is pretty obvious. If the spell or effect states that it has a specific affect on undead (hold undead, corpselight, etc.), then the spell affects someone currently affected by KotV.

I'd say yes, specifically because of the side effects of other spells. The errata didn't change inflict spells healing you and cure spells hurting you. Both inflict spells and the energy drain/enervation spells are negative energy effects. The side effect of the inflict spell, a negative energy effect, is a healing effect while you have Kiss of the Vampire or Shroud of Undeath up. If the intent is that the side effect of an energy drain spell, a negative energy effect, is still damaging, then an inflict spell must still be damaging.

All conjecture. As written, and modified by the errata, KotV has three, clearly disjunctive, side effects:

1) You are treated as if you were undead for the purpose of all spells and effects that specifically affect undead.

2) Cure spells harm you while inflict spells heal you.

3) You can be turned or rebuked.

That is the "line" that the errata draws.

From my point of view, the errata either draws a line or it doesn't. If it draws a line, then the positive side effects of all negative energy effects have to be ignored.

Not true. The rules on negative energy effects are already pretty separate. For instance, undead don't gain levels from being hit with energy drain spells; they're just unaffected. Likewise, a lich gains negative levels from picking up a holy avenger. The cure/inflict thing is actually pretty specific and unrelated to other negative energy effects already.

I don't doubt that the intent behind the errata was to remove the possibility of healing by arcane casters using negative energy effect spells, but it didn't do the job.

Actually, the intent probably was to avoid making casters of KotV immune to mind-affecting spells, critical hits, poison, disease, ability and energy drain, etc etc etc.

An inflict spell doesn't specifically affect undead, and according to the errata, if it doesn't specifically affect undead, neither KotV or SoU do anything to those spells.

Also incorrect. The description, as errata'd, states three different things; the clauses "treated as undead for the purpose of spells and effects that specifically affect undead" and "cure spells harm you, while inflict spells heal you" are separate and not necessarily interdependent.

 

[kreynolds]

The rules on negative energy effects are already pretty separate. For instance, undead don't gain levels from being hit with energy drain spells; they're just unaffected.

From the energy drain spell...

"An undead creature struck by the ray gains 2d4x5 temporary hit points for 1 hour."

From the enervation spell...

"An undead creature struck by the ray gains 1d4x5 temporary hit points for 1 hour."

They are indeed affected, by a side-effect, no less; a side-effect implemented by the very rules of the energy drain and enervation spell, just like the inflict spell.

The cure/inflict thing is actually pretty specific...

So are the energy drain and enervation spells. The errata makes no distinction between those and inflict spells. Is says "it doesn't work", while at the same time, making no change to the part of the spell stating "it works".

Actually, the intent probably was to avoid making casters of KotV immune to mind-affecting spells, critical hits, poison, disease, ability and energy drain, etc etc etc.

Probably.

Also incorrect. The description, as errata'd, states three different things; the clauses "treated as undead for the purpose of spells and effects that specifically affect undead" and "cure spells harm you, while inflict spells heal you" are separate and not necessarily interdependent.

The way I see it, as errata'd, the spell is in complete conflict with itself. It would be like the invisibility spell saying "the target becomes invisible", then one sentence later, saying "the target can be seen as normal". I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

 

[Camarath]

I do get what Camarath is saying, but I don't agree yet. Also from KotV...

"When using this spell, inflict spells heal you and cure spells hurt you."

You are treated as undead for the purpose of an inflict spell, an inflict spell is a negative energy effect, thus you net a positive result from an inflict spell.

I am of the opinion that is section only applies to inflict and cure spells not all negative and positive energy effects.

You are treated as undead for the purpose of an energy drain spell, an energy drain spell is a negative energy effect, thus you net a positive result from an energy drain spell.

I agree you gain the temporary hit points that the spell states Undead gain (although I believe that the errata would preclude this). I just think that the negative levels are given to all targets of the spell regardless of type (even undead) and so it falls to the undead traits to protect the undead from the negative levels they would have potientaly gained from the spell. Since a creature under the effects of KotV does not gain the undead traits he should suffers the affects of the negative levels since it is not how the spell treats him that would protect him but those traits which he did not gain.


In light of the changes to Polymorph I would change the paragraph after bullet points to read "The your type changes to Undead." if I was going to use the spell in 3.5.

 

[kreynolds]

Since a creature under the effects of KotV does not gain the undead traits he should suffers the affects of the negative levels since it is not how the spell treats hm that would protect him but those traits which he did not gain.

They don't gain the undead traits, true, but they are treated as undead. Inflict spells specifically affect undead creatures in a certain way. An enervation spell specifically affects undead creatures in a certain way. If the errata is saying that the target is treated as undead for the purpose of spells and effects that specifically apply against undead, like the curative effecting of an inflict spell, then the target of KotV or SoU would either...

1) ...gain temporary hit points from an energy drain spell, and nothing else. In other words, the energy drain spell, a spell that specifically states it has a different effect if cast on undead, would be treated just like an inflict spell, which is a spell that specifically states it has a different effect if cast on undead.

...or...

2) ...the target would gain temporary hit points from an energy drain spell _and_ would gain negative levels from the same spell, and I don't think _that_ was the intent (mostly cause that's just odd ).

BTW, I just read my post several times in a row, and I'm not sure if I was clear enough, so I edited it. If it still doesn't make sense, please, let me know.

 

[Camarath]

If the errata is saying that the target is treated as undead for the purpose of spells and effects that specifically apply against undead, like the curative effecting of an inflict spell, then the target of KotV or SoU would gain temporary hit points from an energy drain spell _and_ would gain negative levels from the same spell, and I don't think _that_ was the intent (mostly cause that's just odd ).

That is the way I think it works. I agree it is odd but that is what I believe the spell as it is written pans out to. I say just house rule the spell so that it give the Undead type and be done with it.

 

[kreynolds]

Heh. Yeah, that would definately work. But, since you brought it up, do think granting such a thing would be too much for a 2nd-level spell? I'm thinking it would. What about you?

BTW, in case I haven't been clear (which is certainly possible, given that my second post up from this confused even myself for a bit there), after receiving everyone's input (from here and the Wizard's boards), I'm cool with this...

Unless the spell specicially says it effects undead in a certain way, the spell takes effect as normal; i.e inflict spells heal, energy drain spells and enervation spells provide temporary hit points, and disintegrate could still really mess you up.

I honestly think that's in line with the given spell's and their errata. What about you?

 

[Camarath]

Heh. Yeah, that would definately work. But, since you brought it up, do think granting such a thing would be too much for a 2nd-level spell? I'm thinking it would. What about you?

Yeah I think that would be to strong for a 2nd level spell so that would not work for SoU (which I guess I would leave as is) but think it would work well for the 5th level KotV.

 

[kreynolds]

KotV? Really? I don't know, man. That puppy also grants enervation, vampiric touch, charm person, and gaseous form as supernatural abilities, _and_ grants DR. Granted, it has a short duration and some definate drawbacks, but still...you don't think that's too much?

 

[Camarath]

It may be to much I was just looking for a way to side step some of the ambiguity. Althought not all of the effects of being undead are positive think what it could do to your HP and being fully subject to turning is not very pleasent either.